Reactions to the Baby P case have now concentrated on the general management of child protection in Haringey – by the borough itself, the police and the NHS. The decision by the children's secretary, Ed Balls, to send in three inspectors to review the activities of all the agencies concerned has turned a local tragedy into a national political issue.

Ofsted, the Healthcare Commission and the Chief Inspector of Constabulary will jointly examine the Baby P case. Ed Balls said last night "It is our duty to take whatever action is needed to ensure that such a tragedy doesn't happen again, that lessons are learned and that children in Haringey are safe". The obvious question that such a statement raises is: is it ever possible to ensure that parents can be stopped from abusing or killing their children?

Haringey council is under a great deal of pressure. It was recently exposed to the Icelandic bank crisis. It was also the authority where Victoria Climbié was killed in 2000. The subsequent report by Lord Laming, which suggested failures by a number of agencies, led to a number of child protection improvements, including the government's Every Child Matters initiative. Arguably, if the policy response to the Climbié case had been successful, the Baby P killing would not have occurred.

But it did. It appears that the two cases will be linked not only by the borough in which they occurred but also by a conspicuous failure of several public bodies to communicate with each other and/or of individuals to take action. At the end of the new inquiry and interventions, politicians and the public will want to know that children in Haringey are safe.

Where wicked and manipulative people choose to harm children, it is always going to be impossible for public authorities fully to guarantee zero risk. If social workers, the police and doctors find themselves required to guarantee that there is never again a case of the Baby P kind, it will be necessary to take many more children into care, often as a precaution. If this were to occur, there would be – indeed from time to time there are – many accusations of "overzealous" social workers taking children from innocent parents.

This is not to suggest councils, the police, doctors, hospitals and other agencies should assume that the occasional child protection failure is inevitable. But in the real world it is certain that from time to time a failure will occur. The dire conditions in which some people live, particularly in inner cities, coupled with the complexities of modern family life, means that public authorities will never manage a 100% success rate in dealing with so many cases. This will be even truer where people are seeking to hide abuse from the authorities.

It is important that the Baby P case be fully examined to provide evidence about general or systemic failures that might be addressed more generally. A search for scapegoats, on the other hand, would not achieve anything constructive. Individuals may have failed, as may systems. But it is important to avoid the kind of over-reaction that would convince councils and their officers that they should seek to avoid all risk in future.

There is a link between the problems faced by local government in dealing with at-risk children and their recent exposure to Icelandic banks. This link is "risk". How far should a council go towards removing risk? If local authorities take adopt an ultra-cautious approach to all issues, they will deliver fewer, more costly, services. More children would end up in care homes, which would not be a great achievement.

Haringey and other councils clearly need to be kept under pressure to improve. There are many inspectors and regulators that are supposed to do this. The death of another child because of systemic or individual failures in childcare should not be read as an argument for government takeovers or new laws. A period of reflection and calm action would be a better outcome.